Microformat hRecipe vs Prescription Scheme

Question

I would like to know what are the main differences between Microformat hRecipe and Schema.org recipe and how search engines view each of them.

Besides the differences in the code and the fact that the former is open and the latter is proprietary , how do search engines consider each of them, and which is better to implement, both from a long-term point of view and from an SEO point of view?

Answer 1

hRecipe is based on class attributes, while a recipe scheme is based on several attributes. These are the main differences in the markup; hRecipe is backward compatible, while Recipe is not, because it uses html5 data attributes.

the big three search engines say they will refer to both of the same, but I do not buy it; Google clicks on its web platform (s) long enough for me to think that they will add extra juice to the Recipe, although I can’t prove it. even if they don’t throw too much seo into Recipe, you can be sure that they will work something in SERPS, so if you use your own markup you will notice ... more. take prefetch attributes and prender attributes as an example; Google created a prerender, and if you use it on your site, voila, it puts it in SERPS for the user. prefetch does not.

I'm not sure how to distinguish between long term or seo perspective, I look @ them the same way; I am not saying that you cannot, just trying to explain more. I thought about this earlier from the point of view of clients and asked myself the same questions regarding microformats as a whole compared to the scheme. this is basically a solution: microformats are tried and true; There are still millions of sites using micoformatted data than there are schemes. they will not go anywhere. and (as noted earlier) they are backward compatible.

who said that the scheme is supported by the Big Three and based on html5 should not have problems with portability in the future. as mentioned earlier, I am sure that all three will be useful users (although I have no evidence) in their respective search results. however, there is one caveat: how fast everything in the network moves; as fast as the circuit surfaced, it could be discarded. I doubt it (although I hope), but it is an opportunity.

I can’t say that it’s better to implement it, but microformats are certainly much easier to implement, they are based on classes and are so frivolous.

Answer 2

Schema.org with Google, Bing, Yahoo !, and Yandex

Since you asked this question, Microformat hRecipe was updated using microformats2 as an h-recipe , but otherwise your question remains relevant and should be answered more than 6 years later.

... how do search engines handle each ...?

The search engine giants, Google, Microsoft (Bing) and Yahoo !, together with Yandex (a popular search engine in Russia and other countries of the world) collaborated to create Schema.org and the schemes in it.

This collaboration is the biggest difference between Schema.org and Microformats; he is likely to continue to influence how everyone views patterns defined by other parties.

You can read about why they created it and how they relate to other formats in the Schema.org FAQ .

In particular, you might be interested in their answers to ...

• What is the purpose of schema.org?
• Why Google, Bing, Yandex and Yahoo! cooperation?
• I already added the markup in a different format (e.g. microformats, RDFa, data-vocabulary.org, etc.). Do I need to change anything on my site?
• Why microdata? Why not RDFa or microformats?
• Why don't you support other dictionaries like FOAF, SKOS, etc.?

... which one is better to implement, both from a long-term point of view and from an SEO point of view?

The scheme that is best implemented is the one that has the most support; in this case, this is apparently a recipe for Schema.org . Although all of the aforementioned search engines still support microformats, references to this have disappeared from some official Google documents regarding structured data and extended snippets.

Interestingly, Google recommends a new syntax for structured data called JSON-LD .

JSON-LD: the future of structured data?

In the long run, you might consider using the popular JSON-LD markup syntax with the Schema.org Recipe scheme, which even Bing supports ( examples are shown here ), even though their documentation doesn't mention it.

Interesting Pinterest support

The popular Pinterest content discovery platform supports both schemes and even supports the new JSON-LD syntax (although this is not explicitly mentioned in their documentation).

Despite the growing popularity and adoption of Schema.org, Pinterest seems to offer more support for the h-recipe microformat, including e-instructions as a supported class, while the corresponding recipeInstructions Schema.org property is not supported.

It is not clear whether this is a deliberate or even the scheme that they actually prefer, but it is worth bearing in mind if you intend to specifically develop this platform.

Answer 3

It is better to use the schema.org formats, as this has been adopted as a standard by all major search engines (Google, Yahoo and Bing). Using an alternative microformat may mean that some search engines do not recognize this data as special and lose any possible advantages that it offers.